Newbigin
on Lay Presidency at the Eucharist
In his post titled "The
Priesthood of All Believers – Part 2", Jeff Myers quotes Leslie
Newbigin:
The difference between the priesthood of the one who is
authorized to preside at the Eucharist and the priesthood in which all share
through their incorporation into the body of Christ is not an ontological one
but a relational one, not the difference between two different kinds of
priesthood, but a difference of role within the ordering of the body . . . .
the primary priesthood is that of Christ himself. Into this priesthood all the
baptized are incorporated by their baptism and are called to exercise it in the
power of the Holy Spirit. This priesthood is exercised by the baptized in the
course of their daily life in the world. The one who is described as ‘a
minister’ is part of this same priesthood and is called to a special
responsibility to cherish, nourish, and enable the priesthood of the whole body
(“Lay Presidency at the Eucharist,” Theology 99 (Sept/Oct 1996): 366-370
[emphasis Jeff's]).
Newbigin claims that the difference between the priesthood of
the one who is authorized to preside at the Eucharist and the priesthood in
which all share through their incorporation into the body of Christ is not an
ontological one but a relational one. Let's consider that claim carefully. If
the difference is not ontological, but merely relational, then the relation is
merely extrinsic, implying that the terms of the relation can be exchanged
without eliminating the relation.[1]
And that implies that in principle any layman could at any time exchange places
with the 'minister'.
But notice the phrase "one who is authorized to
preside". That seems to throw a wrench into the idea that in principle any
layman could at any time exchange places with the 'minister'. So this creates a
dilemma. Either this authorization makes an ontological difference in the
'minister' or it does not. If the authorization does make an ontological
difference, then, the difference between the 'minister' and the laymen is
ontological, and not merely relational. In that case, Newbigin is contradicting
himself by claiming that the difference is not ontological. If, however, the
authorization does not make an ontological difference, then
"authorized to preside" is merely extrinsic, and thus supervenes upon
whoever happens to be presiding, just as the relation "being 50 yards west
of my nose" happens to supervene upon whatever is 50 yards west of my
nose. In that case, any layman can in principle at any time exchange places
with the 'minister'.
[1] For example, think of the relation "50 yards west of". If the relation exists between X and Y, and then X and Y switch [geographical] places, the relation remains. Why? Because, "50 yards west of" is an extrinsic relation that does not pertain to the intrinsic ontology of the relata. If the relation were the sort of relation that did pertain to the intrinsic ontology of the relata, then the relata could not be exchanged. For example, "is the son of" is the sort of relation that pertains to the intrinsic ontology of the relata. And therefore for such a relation the relata cannot be transposed.